sobering stats
#71
08-18-2018, 12:40 PM
Seasoned HDF Member
As has been mentioned, statistics without context are meaningless at best, and disingenuous and misleading at worst. Is it any surprise that "97% [of fatalities] are on dry roads"? Obviously wet roads are more dangerous, but since most of us avoid riding in the rain the relative number of miles on wet vs dry roads is necessary to have any frame of reference and come to an informed conclusion; otherwise it's just nonsense.
In the US at least, MADD and like minded crusaders have rendered the "alcohol related accident" statistic complete rhetoric used for political ends. If ANY person in any vehicle involved in an accident has had ANYTHING to drink it is considered "alcohol related". So, if you have a beer and are a passenger in a vehicle that's T boned at an intersection by a distracted driver, it's tallied as alcohol related. I have little doubt many other stats are similarly compromised, even if not quite to this degree.
And regarding the assertion made earlier that media falsely reporting helmets as having saved a life is a good thing if it encourages more people to wear them, we see many political issues where junk science and statistics are justified in the same fashion because it furthers an agenda of which some people are in favor. This is the root of "fake news" and is a source of tremendous harm in political and social arenas, giving rise to all sorts of unintended consequences, since we now can't trust anything the "experts" are telling us as they've shown a willingness to deliberately misconstrue data to further their own opinions of how things ought to be. Just look at the mess with climate scientists justifying cherry picking data for the stated purpose that even if their assertions about climate change turn out to be wrong the political and social repercussions are worthwhile and a good thing, as stated in their emails released on wikileaks. Their credibility can now be legitimately called into question, and conspiracy theorists are suddenly given credence whether or not it's deserved, and all of us who rely on these so called experts are left wondering who to believe, if anyone.
In the US at least, MADD and like minded crusaders have rendered the "alcohol related accident" statistic complete rhetoric used for political ends. If ANY person in any vehicle involved in an accident has had ANYTHING to drink it is considered "alcohol related". So, if you have a beer and are a passenger in a vehicle that's T boned at an intersection by a distracted driver, it's tallied as alcohol related. I have little doubt many other stats are similarly compromised, even if not quite to this degree.
And regarding the assertion made earlier that media falsely reporting helmets as having saved a life is a good thing if it encourages more people to wear them, we see many political issues where junk science and statistics are justified in the same fashion because it furthers an agenda of which some people are in favor. This is the root of "fake news" and is a source of tremendous harm in political and social arenas, giving rise to all sorts of unintended consequences, since we now can't trust anything the "experts" are telling us as they've shown a willingness to deliberately misconstrue data to further their own opinions of how things ought to be. Just look at the mess with climate scientists justifying cherry picking data for the stated purpose that even if their assertions about climate change turn out to be wrong the political and social repercussions are worthwhile and a good thing, as stated in their emails released on wikileaks. Their credibility can now be legitimately called into question, and conspiracy theorists are suddenly given credence whether or not it's deserved, and all of us who rely on these so called experts are left wondering who to believe, if anyone.
#73
08-18-2018, 02:04 PM
Club Member
Here are some stats I came across today that really made me stop and wonder about. From the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2016 there were 5,286 motorcyclist fatalities. Of that number 2,089 (41%) were NOT wearing a helmet. I know the argument about individual rights and freedoms but seriously?? Yes you can go ahead in some states and not wear a helmet and take your chances but some one has to clean up the mess. Even worse were the BAC stats. 25% of the motorcycle fatalities had a BAC over .08. What the F!! Does anyone really think it is a good idea to go out and get legally intoxicated and then get on a motorcycle and drive around??? Talk about a death wish
Just my opinion I know.
Just my opinion I know.
The following users liked this post:
SPRINGER (08-18-2018)
#74
08-18-2018, 02:37 PM
Or maybe you'd prefer to "Die Harder"?
But instead of "Live Free or Die Hard" - I want to "Live Free AND Die Hard "
(Man there's fun to be had with movie titles...)
I think that last one was me (it wasn't quite my intention though, I despise propaganda news)
And yes - it was WRONG of me to justify the false reporting by "encouragement" - it then justifies other false reporting "for the good of the people" - which means someone else is deciding what is good for you and me, not us.
*slap*
"WTF were you thinking, idiot"
(from me to me)
But instead of "Live Free or Die Hard" - I want to "Live Free AND Die Hard "
(Man there's fun to be had with movie titles...)
As has been mentioned, statistics without context are meaningless at best, and disingenuous and misleading at worst. Is it any surprise that "97% [of fatalities] are on dry roads"? Obviously wet roads are more dangerous, but since most of us avoid riding in the rain the relative number of miles on wet vs dry roads is necessary to have any frame of reference and come to an informed conclusion; otherwise it's just nonsense.
In the US at least, MADD and like minded crusaders have rendered the "alcohol related accident" statistic complete rhetoric used for political ends. If ANY person in any vehicle involved in an accident has had ANYTHING to drink it is considered "alcohol related". So, if you have a beer and are a passenger in a vehicle that's T boned at an intersection by a distracted driver, it's tallied as alcohol related. I have little doubt many other stats are similarly compromised, even if not quite to this degree.
And regarding the assertion made earlier that media falsely reporting helmets as having saved a life is a good thing if it encourages more people to wear them, we see many political issues where junk science and statistics are justified in the same fashion because it furthers an agenda of which some people are in favor. This is the root of "fake news" and is a source of tremendous harm in political and social arenas, giving rise to all sorts of unintended consequences, since we now can't trust anything the "experts" are telling us as they've shown a willingness to deliberately misconstrue data to further their own opinions of how things ought to be. Just look at the mess with climate scientists justifying cherry picking data for the stated purpose that even if their assertions about climate change turn out to be wrong the political and social repercussions are worthwhile and a good thing, as stated in their emails released on wikileaks. Their credibility can now be legitimately called into question, and conspiracy theorists are suddenly given credence whether or not it's deserved, and all of us who rely on these so called experts are left wondering who to believe, if anyone.
In the US at least, MADD and like minded crusaders have rendered the "alcohol related accident" statistic complete rhetoric used for political ends. If ANY person in any vehicle involved in an accident has had ANYTHING to drink it is considered "alcohol related". So, if you have a beer and are a passenger in a vehicle that's T boned at an intersection by a distracted driver, it's tallied as alcohol related. I have little doubt many other stats are similarly compromised, even if not quite to this degree.
And regarding the assertion made earlier that media falsely reporting helmets as having saved a life is a good thing if it encourages more people to wear them, we see many political issues where junk science and statistics are justified in the same fashion because it furthers an agenda of which some people are in favor. This is the root of "fake news" and is a source of tremendous harm in political and social arenas, giving rise to all sorts of unintended consequences, since we now can't trust anything the "experts" are telling us as they've shown a willingness to deliberately misconstrue data to further their own opinions of how things ought to be. Just look at the mess with climate scientists justifying cherry picking data for the stated purpose that even if their assertions about climate change turn out to be wrong the political and social repercussions are worthwhile and a good thing, as stated in their emails released on wikileaks. Their credibility can now be legitimately called into question, and conspiracy theorists are suddenly given credence whether or not it's deserved, and all of us who rely on these so called experts are left wondering who to believe, if anyone.
And yes - it was WRONG of me to justify the false reporting by "encouragement" - it then justifies other false reporting "for the good of the people" - which means someone else is deciding what is good for you and me, not us.
*slap*
"WTF were you thinking, idiot"
(from me to me)
Last edited by ChickinOnaChain; 08-28-2018 at 04:24 PM. Reason: Multiple posts
#75
08-18-2018, 06:16 PM
Cruiser
Choosing to ride a bike is a risk, clearly. It's a risk that we obviously choose to take. So none of us are entirely risk-averse.
But the AGTATT contingent maintains that risk is OK (riding a motorcycle) only up to the point at which they're comfortable (wearing helmet/gear).
#76
08-18-2018, 07:06 PM
Seasoned HDF Member
This is the logic from ATGATT folks that confounds me. If a motorcycle is THE most vulnerable thing on the road, then "common sense" would dictate to stay in a car.
Choosing to ride a bike is a risk, clearly. It's a risk that we obviously choose to take. So none of us are entirely risk-averse.
But the AGTATT contingent maintains that risk is OK (riding a motorcycle) only up to the point at which they're comfortable (wearing helmet/gear).
Choosing to ride a bike is a risk, clearly. It's a risk that we obviously choose to take. So none of us are entirely risk-averse.
But the AGTATT contingent maintains that risk is OK (riding a motorcycle) only up to the point at which they're comfortable (wearing helmet/gear).
The following users liked this post:
Clammy (08-19-2018)
#77
08-19-2018, 06:14 AM
This is the logic from ATGATT folks that confounds me. If a motorcycle is THE most vulnerable thing on the road, then "common sense" would dictate to stay in a car.
Choosing to ride a bike is a risk, clearly. It's a risk that we obviously choose to take. So none of us are entirely risk-averse.
But the AGTATT contingent maintains that risk is OK (riding a motorcycle) only up to the point at which they're comfortable (wearing helmet/gear).
Choosing to ride a bike is a risk, clearly. It's a risk that we obviously choose to take. So none of us are entirely risk-averse.
But the AGTATT contingent maintains that risk is OK (riding a motorcycle) only up to the point at which they're comfortable (wearing helmet/gear).
My word about vulnerability wasn't meant to say "stay in a cage" or "wear three layers of leather, knee pads, ankle braces, and two helmets" (yeah, I'm exaggerating for comedy there)
It was more about recognising and acknowledging that on a bike you are the most vulnerable thing on the road.... the cagers don't give a **** if they side-swipe you off, you get 99% of the damage, they get the 1%.
They bump into another car that they pull out in front = no one gets hurt, insurance covers the cars, little ***** given.
They bump into a motorcycle that they pull out in front = YOU get hurt, broken leg, collar bone, bike half-totalled, they're safe in the cage..
It's not "don't ride, too scary and dangerous" = it's "ride like buggery but understand that they are morons and don't give a ****".
Example of acknowledging vulnerability - I've seen YouTube videos of motorcyclists doing those morons "brake checks" - on cars AND trucks! When you're ***** to the wind, YOU get the damage, not them.
So I was more about people coming to terms with them being the vulnerable one and taking their own steps as they see fit... not defining a "level of acceptable" for riding.
Me? I chose to wear a helmet, ride in standard street jeans, long sleeve shirt (or short sleeve if it's hot), leather vest (not for looks, it keeps the chest warm in the wind), gloves (even if it's hot, your hand get cold riding) - and I rely on my driving, riding, and awareness skills to keep me relatively out of danger.
Last edited by OzHD; 08-19-2018 at 06:17 AM. Reason: typos and layout
#78
08-19-2018, 05:12 PM
Stellar HDF Member
I wear a helmet always. Was riding in a hail storm. Was in MO and rode through three hail storms. Hail in hail storms are not uniform in size, I found that out. I was in traffic moving at a good clip and a chunk of ice cracked my face shield.
Maybe I would have been knocked out or blinded but the lid kept me riding. I ended that days ride in Ferguson MO just as the riots broke out!! But that was way after the black bear ran out in front of me on the highway in VA!
So the moral of the story is the bear would have had a hard time eating my head with the helmet on!!!
Maybe I would have been knocked out or blinded but the lid kept me riding. I ended that days ride in Ferguson MO just as the riots broke out!! But that was way after the black bear ran out in front of me on the highway in VA!
So the moral of the story is the bear would have had a hard time eating my head with the helmet on!!!
Last edited by Oakers3; 08-19-2018 at 05:13 PM. Reason: grammar
#79
08-20-2018, 07:02 AM
Seasoned HDF Member
I wear a helmet always. Was riding in a hail storm. Was in MO and rode through three hail storms. Hail in hail storms are not uniform in size, I found that out. I was in traffic moving at a good clip and a chunk of ice cracked my face shield.
Maybe I would have been knocked out or blinded but the lid kept me riding. I ended that days ride in Ferguson MO just as the riots broke out!! But that was way after the black bear ran out in front of me on the highway in VA!
So the moral of the story is the bear would have had a hard time eating my head with the helmet on!!!
Maybe I would have been knocked out or blinded but the lid kept me riding. I ended that days ride in Ferguson MO just as the riots broke out!! But that was way after the black bear ran out in front of me on the highway in VA!
So the moral of the story is the bear would have had a hard time eating my head with the helmet on!!!
#80
08-21-2018, 08:03 AM
Been riding almost 20 years. Back in the days when we got the helmet law repealed here, it was mostly because helmets sucked bad. They were pretty much worthless in a crash, and more likely to make you crash while wearing them. If they didn't occlude your vision, then they choked you to death, or made you a no neck weightlifter with a 4 lb bowling ball on your noggin that was certain to break your neck. Stats from those days back that up.
Not having a law meant that the helmets that were being produced had to make you want to wear them. When a started riding with a lid again, the helmets were way more advanced than they used to be. Could get a long sleeve armor jacket that was mesh and comfortable in the summer that didn't make you look like an anime refugee. Kevlar jeans that were comfortable to wear and afforded crash protection, without labeling you as Ricky racer.
Wear what you want, or don't. But know that the evolution in protective gear is most unobtrusive compared to back in the days. Remember, old bones take longer to heal.
Not having a law meant that the helmets that were being produced had to make you want to wear them. When a started riding with a lid again, the helmets were way more advanced than they used to be. Could get a long sleeve armor jacket that was mesh and comfortable in the summer that didn't make you look like an anime refugee. Kevlar jeans that were comfortable to wear and afforded crash protection, without labeling you as Ricky racer.
Wear what you want, or don't. But know that the evolution in protective gear is most unobtrusive compared to back in the days. Remember, old bones take longer to heal.